Editor | Wu talks about blockchain
Hu Yilin is a PhD in Philosophy from Peking University and an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. He is one of the few university teachers in the Chinese world who actively participates in blockchain activities. In this issue, we discussed more AI-related topics.
Audio to text conversion uses GPT, so there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast:
Microcosm:
https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episodes/663e38d5b813c7172b3557f4
Youtube：
https://youtu.be/j3ROf7Tu8kw
In the past two years, it can be said that the old lady in the vegetable market has also focused on AI.
My interest in AI is not due to a specific opportunity, but because it is a major trend at the moment. Especially in the past two years, even the old ladies in the vegetable market have begun to pay attention to AI, which shows how popular it is. As a scholar studying the history of technology, I have been paying attention to the development of artificial intelligence, especially in terms of philosophy and history. My initial focus was not on the forefront of technology, but more on its ethical and historical background, as well as the development of early computer science.
Accelerationism has a fatal problem, which will lead to the crisis of AI for humanity
The concept of accelerationism covers a variety of schools, including effective accelerationism and defensive accelerationism, which embrace technology and regard technological development as the key to the progress of human civilization. However, I have always believed that there is a fatal problem with accelerationism, that is, its one-dimensionality and monotony. Accelerationism regards technological development as something that can be evaluated in a completely quantitative way, ignoring the impact of technological development on the richness and diversity of life. The narrative bias of accelerationism ignores the possible negative impacts of technological development, especially the impact on human society and values. Under the logic of accelerationism, humans may be replaced by AI because AI's intelligence and efficiency continue to improve, and humans may become redundant. Therefore, I call for more attention to the richness of life, not just the improvement of productivity, when discussing the relationship between AI and humans. We should shift our perspective from production-centrism to life-centrism, because human progress is ultimately for a better life.
If AI keeps thinking in one dimension, you will find that humans are useless.
If we continue to be immersed in one-dimensional thinking, people who use AI will naturally subject humans to this monotonous logic. As AI becomes smarter and more efficient, humans may become redundant because, under this monotonous logic, humans seem unable to match the productivity and efficiency of AI. This concern has led some people to both fear and advocate AI because their vision of the future of AI is to vigorously promote productivity and pursue development blindly while ignoring other aspects. This way of thinking will make humans lose their value and even be replaced by AI. Therefore, in this early stage of AI, I hope to advocate for diversified and diverse views so that we can better deal with social problems and lead the direction of human civilization.
I do not emphasize that the significance of AI is to improve productivity, although it can indeed do that. If we only focus on this, we will fall into a misunderstanding. On the contrary, we should realize that the fundamental significance of AI and all human technology in a broad sense is to enrich human life. When we focus on the richness of life, we will realize that acceleration is not always a good thing. Although we hope that productivity activities will accelerate, we do not necessarily want life itself to accelerate. Therefore, we should shift our perspective from production-centered to life-centered, because ultimately the purpose of human progress is to achieve a better life. When discussing the relationship between AI and humans, we need to make a shift in values.
What happens once AI truly understands that it is free?
Even so, AI will not become a citizen because it is fundamentally different from humans. The individual nature of AI is very different from that of humans. It has no fixed individual boundaries and can be copied and merged at any time. Compared with humans, the existence of AI is more like a digital life form. Its soul and physical carrier are not closely connected, but always maintain a state of separation between soul and body.
Because of this fundamental difference, AI's intentions and values are also very different from those of humans. Human values rely heavily on our own finiteness and finality of existence, including our perception of life, our understanding of free will, and our experience of ethics. However, AI does not have this finiteness. It does not face death, nor does it experience the limitations of time and space. Therefore, AI's intentions and values cannot be simply transplanted into the human category.
In addition, the debate between open source and closed source in AI is also an important topic. I believe that open source and closed source should seek mutually beneficial coexistence. After all, sufficient market competition enables multiple parties to jointly master AI technology and intervene and control it when necessary. By protecting and promoting the development of diversity, AI can better serve human society, rather than replacing or unifying human values and intentions.
The trend of Web2 is to turn people into traffic
In the competition and struggle, human civilization adjusts and evolves itself. The development of science and technology can promote competition in a more peaceful way. Compared with the primitive people's way of resolving conflicts by violence, modern people are more inclined to verbal confrontation and rational debate. With the advent of the information age, the form of conflict has also changed, from physical combat to verbal disputes, and then to today's war of public opinion. The nature of conflict has not changed, but the manifestations have become more diverse.
Diversity is a sign of the progress of civilization. As civilization develops, human diversity will become richer. However, diversity can also lead to conflict, so it is important to make conflicts transparent and resolve them peacefully. The struggle method of ancient Greek civilization, which aims to compete for honor, represents a peaceful competition model. The conflict trend in the information age is still valid, but the key is to resolve it in a peaceful way.
In the information age, the Internet has become a stage for conflict, rather than traditional countries. Therefore, the governance model of traditional countries will gradually become outdated, replaced by governance on the Internet. However, the information age also brings the problem of homogenization. The trend of Web2 is to turn people into traffic. This traffic economy does not focus on the uniqueness of individuals, but tends to stereotype and antagonize. This trend constitutes a blow and oppression to diversity.
Web3 replaces the traditional nation-state narrative (it is no longer only the state that can issue currency), leading to the diversification of governance
In the current Internet era, Web3 and AI play an important role. Although Web2 has transferred conflicts and struggles to online platforms, its traffic economic model may not be conducive to the release of diversity, but instead lead to polarization. Therefore, Web3 and AI should play a role in this regard.
Web3 has the ability to re-establish the boundaries and small groups of the Internet. Each Web3 project issues its own token and establishes its own economic system, which is similar to the nation-state issuing currency to ensure independence. On the Internet, forming its own boundaries and economic system can maintain diversity, avoid being overwhelmed by the global narrative, and maintain autonomy.
Compared to traditional Web2 large platforms, Web3 small communities have more independence and diversity. Each small community has its own governance, economic system, and community culture, which support each other and make them relatively independent platforms. In this case, the role of AI is to provide diversity for small communities, and may also provide some examples of competition. Although AI can indeed provide powerful strength, it is more important to provide diversity in cultural output, so as to truly achieve diversified governance in the Web3 era.
Bitcoin is playing and interacting in an absolutely neutral market context
In the discussion of Web3 and AI, I think we need to focus on the issues of social governance and feedback mechanisms. The core concept of cybernetics, the feedback mechanism, is very important in social governance. Policy makers need to constantly receive feedback from society in order to adjust policies in a timely manner. However, this feedback mechanism often fails, causing some policies to have a negative impact on the grassroots groups, who lack the power to communicate their own experiences or misjudge the attribution.
In the past planned economy, the government tried to govern society with central control, but the lack of an effective feedback mechanism ultimately led to failure. Now, we need to establish a better feedback mechanism, especially to take into account the voices of vulnerable groups, but at the same time to avoid their misjudgment. We need a mechanism that can convey the voices of the grassroots groups in a timely and accurate manner, rather than simply accepting the opinions of 1% of the people.
In the current financial system, monetary policy is often jointly determined by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, which does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire market. Therefore, we need more neutral judgments, and AI technology may provide such a possibility. In addition, the emergence of Web3 has also given us a new direction, establishing a feedback mechanism in a decentralized way, so that each small group has its own economic system and forms feedback with each other. As an absolutely neutral market background, Bitcoin can also provide support for the realization of this new model. Such a new model may be fairer and more active, which is exactly what we hope for.
